<div dir="ltr">Hello Olli,<br><div><br>This is an interesting question and you are not alone in your notion that mathematics seem to be the most important requirement for physics these days, while fundamental ideas and even common sense seems to have been replaced by pages of equations. <br><br></div><div>In that respect, it is interesting to quote none other than Albert Einstein, as I did in my background article:<br><br><a href="http://www.tuks.nl/wiki/index.php/Main/OnSpaceTimeAndTheFabricOfNature">http://www.tuks.nl/wiki/index.php/Main/OnSpaceTimeAndTheFabricOfNature</a><br><a href="https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein">https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein</a><br><br><div class="gmail-indent">"Concepts that have proven useful in ordering things easily achieve such <strong>authority over us</strong> that we forget their <strong>earthly origins</strong> and <strong>accept them as unalterable givens</strong>. Thus they might come to be stamped as "necessities of thought," "a priori givens," etc. The path of <strong>scientific progress is often made impassable for a long time by such errors</strong>.
Therefore it is by no means an idle game if we become practiced in
analysing long-held commonplace concepts and showing the circumstances
on which their justification and usefulness depend, and how they have
grown up, individually, out of the givens of experience. Thus their <strong>excessive authority</strong>
will be broken. They will be removed if they cannot be properly
legitimated, corrected if their correlation with given things be far too
superfluous, or replaced if a new system can be established that we
prefer for whatever reason." Obituary for physicist and philosopher
Ernst Mach (Nachruf auf Ernst Mach), Physikalische Zeitschrift 17
(1916), p. 101
</div><div class="gmail-indent"><br><br>"I fully agree with
you about the significance and educational value of methodology as well
as history and philosophy of science. So many people today — and even
professional scientists — seem to me <strong>like someone who has seen thousands of trees but has never seen a forest</strong>. A <strong>knowledge of the historic and philosophical background</strong> gives that kind of <strong>independence</strong> from <strong>prejudices</strong> of his generation from which <strong>most scientists are suffering</strong>. This <strong>independence</strong> created by philosophical insight is — in my opinion — the mark of distinction between a mere artisan or specialist and <strong>a real seeker after truth</strong>."
Letter to Robert A. Thorton, Physics Professor at University of Puerto
Rico (7 December 1944) [EA-674, Einstein Archive, Hebrew University,
Jerusalem].
</div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Now getting back to your question: is the Universe expanding?<br><br></div><div>Main stream science may think the answer to that question has been solved, but when one considers that the measurements by which they have come to this conclusion are based on the fundamental assumption that the speed of light is constant across the Universe, while this is not the case IMHO, one is tempted to come to the conclusion that science actually has no idea what they have been measuring and therefore one has to take their answers with a big grain of salt for the time being. <br><br></div><div>The video I posted by David LaPoint shows very interesting connections between what can be done in a laboratory and patterns we observe at a galactic scale:<br><br><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=siMFfNhn6dk">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=siMFfNhn6dk</a><br><br></div><div>For me, it's still an open question whether or not the Universe is actually expanding, but perhaps others have another perspective to share.<br><br></div><div>Regards,<br><br></div><div>Arend.<br></div><div><br><br></div><div><br></div><div><br><br><br></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 5:44 PM, Olli Santavuori <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:olli.santavuori@saunalahti.fi" target="_blank">olli.santavuori@saunalahti.fi</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">About cosmology:<br>
<br>
<br>
Please send me some comments to the following:<br>
<br>
The moving of the galaxies from each other can be explained so, that it is the property on the limitless universe and needs not an empirical explanation. In the limitless universe things must happen like this. From the known moving of the galaxies does not follow an expanding *universe*, as they always think.<br>
<br>
It only needs a mathematical model of the limitless space. My competence is not enough for that. My thoughts: <a href="http://www.santavuori.com" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">www.santavuori.com</a><br>
<br>
<br>
Pori, Finland, 17.10.2016<br>
<br>
Olli Santavuori<br>
also: <a href="mailto:olli.santavuori@saunalahti.fi" target="_blank">olli.santavuori@saunalahti.fi</a><br>
<br>
______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
Physics mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Physics@tuks.nl" target="_blank">Physics@tuks.nl</a><br>
<a href="http://mail.tuks.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/physics" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://mail.tuks.nl/cgi-bin/ma<wbr>ilman/listinfo/physics</a><br>
</blockquote></div><br></div>